Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

The Valdez plan is actually a very good plan. oakland has many issues, some perceived and some very real. Part of Oaklands problem is it gets in its own way. The valdez plan has had little to know traction, i know because i have been to every meeting and have been dealing with the district alot in recent years, in its time on the table because the people of Oakland are not well represented at these meetings. At one point Oakland actually had offers from Macys and Nordstroms as well as Kohles and target for space in that area and no growth or local only people gave them such a hard time they all just pulled out. In addition Oakland has become the San Francisco mans land piggy bank. Land values are very high downtown for an area the essentially has nothing in it. I mean SF type high. Developers squat on this land until some other developer comes along and wants to buy it for WAY more than an empty plot is worth. The issue in valdez is the number of these people and the size of the parcels they control. All over priced and undersized. The area isnt even as prime a location as the would be optimal for large format retail, relatively far from BART, no real close freeway exits, Minimal viability for people in transit visa vi the freeway. without their being several major chain stores to anchor it Valdez will never reach the potential they are aiming for. Unfortunately the people of Oakland that want this stuff also can't show up in mass to these meetings to voice their opinion so the voices that are heard are people who either hate all development, hate all chain stores, or love Oakland as the small town it was 50 years ago. Or enjoy the fact that the area is less than desirable and an therefore cash in on low rents. the other argument is that the city just doesnt have the wealth to support such a project which i find laughable considering the value and cost of living for basically everything north of 580.

My friend, we have this new technique in writing called paragraphs, please use them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

SF is a real integrated city? For who?

By default because everyone is crammed together in a 7x7 box. But I get what you mean.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

Oakland really is two separate areas, the burby hills, and the urban flats. If you spent all your time in one, you couldn't imagine the city being the other. It's not a real integrated urban city like San Francisco, or New York. Most people though simply associate Oakland with the flats.

Wow, just wow. I think it has become painfully clear that you don't know what you're talking about. So which one is Lake Merritt genius? Well, it can't be the "burby hills" so I guess I'm in the "urban flats" LMAO.

I don't recall anyone claiming the the area around the Coliseum was the best neighborhood in Oakland. What people did refute is that the area around the Coliseum is the worst area in town, and that is has remained the same since the 1982.

No one called that area the "best" area but even though I have Nineties Flava on ignore, I was able to read a quoted text where he claimed "hegenberger" was full of nice restaurants and classy areas to hang out.

No one called that area the "best" area but even though I have Nineties Flava on ignore, I was able to read a quoted text where he claimed "hegenberger" was full of nice restaurants and classy areas to hang out.

That might be true, but not near the stadium.

You blatantly made that up. What I said is that there's a variety of restaurants - chain and non-chain - on Hegenberger and that it's relatively safe. Expect is the one who construed that to mean that I was making Hegenberger out to be something it isn't. I never stated once that it was a luxurious area.

You blatantly made that up. What I said is that there's a variety of restaurants - chain and non-chain - on Hegenberger and that it's relatively safe. Expect is the one who construed that to mean that I was making Hegenberger out to be something it isn't. I never stated once that it was a luxurious area.

expect is the last person to offer up an opinion on anything as he clearly stated that no one goes to Downtown Oakland after 5pm and after being backed into a corner for evidence to prove such a blatantly false claim, he refuses to provide any proof and then goes off on another tangent.

Pay no mind to his antics as he is totally ignorant of Oakland, his own words condemn him.

The Valdez plan is actually a very good plan. oakland has many issues, some perceived and some very real. Part of Oaklands problem is it gets in its own way. The valdez plan has had little to know traction, i know because i have been to every meeting and have been dealing with the district alot in recent years, in its time on the table because the people of Oakland are not well represented at these meetings. At one point Oakland actually had offers from Macys and Nordstroms as well as Kohles and target for space in that area and no growth or local only people gave them such a hard time they all just pulled out. In addition Oakland has become the San Francisco mans land piggy bank. Land values are very high downtown for an area the essentially has nothing in it. I mean SF type high. Developers squat on this land until some other developer comes along and wants to buy it for WAY more than an empty plot is worth. The issue in valdez is the number of these people and the size of the parcels they control. All over priced and undersized. The area isnt even as prime a location as the would be optimal for large format retail, relatively far from BART, no real close freeway exits, Minimal viability for people in transit visa vi the freeway. without their being several major chain stores to anchor it Valdez will never reach the potential they are aiming for. Unfortunately the people of Oakland that want this stuff also can't show up in mass to these meetings to voice their opinion so the voices that are heard are people who either hate all development, hate all chain stores, or love Oakland as the small town it was 50 years ago. Or enjoy the fact that the area is less than desirable and an therefore cash in on low rents. the other argument is that the city just doesnt have the wealth to support such a project which i find laughable considering the value and cost of living for basically everything north of 580.

I see a lot of the same problems. This project has been in pre-planning for 3 years, and it looks like it will be there for a while.

Like I said to jade, this project won't break ground until 2018, if ever.

It makes sense that the Warriors are leaving I suppose. Oakland bureaucrats will "pre-plan" the building of a new stadium, shopping malls, fine dining for 5 years, then take another 10 years to get the funds to actually do it. By then, the Warriors will have another playoff worthy squad.

Oh well. Oakland can't catch a break, but I do like the ring of SF Warriors.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.